A Critique of Thomas B. Stoddard’s Gay Marriages: Make Them Legal

Sheldon claims that ‘homosexual marriage is neither culturally nor physiologically possible’ (p. 1). He sustains that ‘without the cooperation of a third party, the homosexual marriage is a dead-end street - referring to the reproductive aspect of marriage (p. 1).

Stoddard briefly points out that "marriage is not fundamentally a procreative unit" because a number of heterosexual couples that are united in marriage have no intention of raising a family and are incapable of having children. Heterosexual marriages in general, however, provide social stability to the economy because the union between a man and a woman has the potential to bear offspring. Stoddard also states that presently "all 50 states deny that choice [the decision whether or not to marry] to millions of gay and lesbian Americans." Firstly, in the case of Baehr vs. Miike, gays were allowed to become a married couple in the state of Hawaii on December 3, 1996. Consequently, Stoddard's claim that "all 50 states deny that choice" is somewhat extreme. Lastly, not a single state denies heterosexuals the right to refuse marriage. It is the legal attainment of the rights and responsibilities of marriage that states disallow homosexuals.

In summary of these, the Obergefell V Hodges has received opposition as well as propositions at different degrees, but the majority of the debaters’ are the proposing side. The main idea here was to legalize the Same-sex marriage which had been prohibited in the previous court rulings (Siegel, 2015). The proposing team was emphasizing on the following factors; the right to personal choices as clarified in the human dignity, the right to intimate association, marriage as a foundation of the American social order and the ability to sustain and safeguard children and families (Siegel, 2015).

This comparison creates a sense of "us and them" within readers, which Court uses as a platform to attack politicians. She accuses them of being leaders who "lie and spread deceit", immediately giving readers a negative perspective of politicians who were tolerant of gay marriage. They are portrayed as "leaning towards an agenda of political correctness" before Court implies that they are doing the "wrong" thing by their conscience. This attack positions readers to feel anger or disappointment towards politicians who support gay marriage by demonising them, the connotation being that any person who supports gay marriage is just as

In his essay, “Let Gays Marry,” Andrew Sullivan advocates gay marriage. He argues that gay couples ought to be able to marry because as citizens, they deserve equal rights. He claims that disallowing gays to marry each other would make them strangers in their own country. However, his argument is invalid as it seeks to impose the broad definition of equality on the narrower, but unrelated issue of marriage. Just because gays have equal rights as citizens, doesn’t mean they have the right to marry each other, because homosexual marriage cannot fulfill the biological, sociological, or civil aims of marriage.

In the reading, “Here Comes the Groom," the author, Andrew Sullivan argues that the legalization of gay marriage is both a liberal and conservative cause

Critique of Bennett’s “Against Gay Marriage” Gay marriage is repeatedly under the magnifying glass in the media, the papers, and constantly opposed by adamant conservative politicians. In his piece “Against Gay Marriage,” Bennett demonstrates this issue. William Bennett himself is a married conservative politician. Due to this, we can better understand the flailing urgency of his argument against homosexual marriage. Bennett takes a very strong and adamant approach to what is a particularly sensitive subject at this moment in time, and leaps into act of persuading his audience to turn away from the idea of legalizing gay marriage, or even to reject it.

The debate on whether the constitution should be changed to allow gays/lesbians legal status, whereby the partners are protected while in the institution of marriage is a heated debated which has been ongoing in many years. There are those states whereby the rights of gays/lesbians to have legal marriages have been recognized, but in most of the states their right to legal marriage have not been recognized. This essay looks at the reasons why the American constitution should be amended to ensure that all states across the United States recognizes the rights of gays/lesbians to have legal marriages. The argument will focus on the impact that lack of legal marriages have on the gay and lesbian partners and the reasons why constitutional amendment can only be the best solution to resolve the issues of the rights for the gay community to a legal marriage.

On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry. Many conservative groups do NOT agree with this decision. The gay marriage debate has been simmering for as long as I can remember. The four articles I have selected give information from four different perspectives including that of liberals, conservatives, homosexuals, and orthodox Jews. With so many differing opinions, one can understand why it's been so hard for the nation to come to agree on this issue.

Debates about gay marriage continue to simmer within American public discourse, though much of the more heated rhetoric has calmed since the earliest efforts to legalize same-sex marriage succeeded in numerous states. These debates have spanned many topics, ranging from religion to politics and beyond. Andrew Sullivan, a prominent gay and self-described conservative political commentator, addressed one angle of the issue in his July 19, 2011 Newsweek Magazine article “Why Gay Marriage is Good for America.” Through a mixture of personal reflection, social commentary, and political argumentation, Sullivan’s article is less a defense of gay marriage than it is a defense of the idea that gay marriage is compatible with conservative political values. Although Sullivan makes a good case for his position in the article, his argument is ultimately under-developed; the lengthy personal reflections serve to reinforce a relatively minor point in the context of the larger argument, shifting focus away from the more relevant portions of the argument.

Recently, people have been arguing with respect to the definition of marriage. To get married is a very important event for almost everyone. Particularly for women, marriage and giving a birth could be the two major events of their lives. Andrew Sullivan and William Bennett are authors who are arguing about homosexual marriage. Sullivan believes in same-sex marriage because he thinks everyone has a right to marry. On the other hand, Bennett speaks out against Sullivan’s opinion. Bennett makes a claim that marriage is between a man and a woman structuring their entire life together. Both authors’ opinions differ on same-sex marriage. Nevertheless, their ideas are well recognized.

Strongly against gay marriage is the central theme of Louis P. Sheldon’s article Gay Marriage “Unnatural”. According to the author’s views, gay marriage is ‘unnatural’, and

Under circumstances, such as same-sex marriage, Jeff Jordan claims it is morally wrong. In his essay “Is It Wrong to Discriminate on the Basis of Homosexuality”, Jordan analysis how such rights would go against others views and public policy ramifications. To make it apparent that his claims about same-sex marriages are correct Jordan states what the two conflicting sides argue.

“Nobody’s saying this will be easy. The important things never are,” (Fagan 14). Gun control is among one of the most disputed issues in the United States. Different views collide with each other and split our nation into two sides; those who support gun control, and those who don't. The United States should implement stricter gun control laws, because: the rate of death has increased drastically, guns increase violence, and mass shootings are at an all-time high.

One of the most controversial issues around today is gay marriages. Many believe that the media is primly responsible for the idea of same-sex marriages, but when it all comes down to it there are really only two sides; those who support gay marriages, and those who oppose them. Two authors write their opinions on their opposite views on this issue. Sullivan (2002) supports same-sex marriages and believes marriage to be a universal right, not just restricted to heterosexuals. Contrary to Sullivan, Bennett (2002) believes that marriage is a sacred traditional family value that should be set aside for heterosexual couples. (2002)Throughout this essay, I will summarize both authors’ ideas and evaluate them through their evidence and